FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Faiz Muhammad, sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Chobara, District Layyah. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was attributed simple injuries, was aged 70/75 years, and the applicability of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding common intention and vicarious liability. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased, was attributed only simple injuries to prosecution witnesses, and the question of sharing a common intention required further probe, the case fell within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing appropriate bail bonds.
- Whether a petitioner attributed simple injuries and no role in the fatal blow is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the question of shared common intention in a clash over disputed land require further probe warranting bail?
- Whether advanced age and lack of recovery from the accused support the grant of bail pending trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Faiz Muhammad son of Kaloo, petitioner, seeks his post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,5 of 2001 dated 12-1-2001 registered under sections 302/324/148/149/109, P.P.C. At Police Station Chobara, District Layyah, on the statement of one Altaf Hussain.
2. Eight persons including three females were named as accused in the F.I.R. Subsequently, the female accused were found innocent.
3. According to the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. The accused had forcibly taken over the possession of the land regarding which there was a dispute between the parties. On the fateful day, according to the F.I.R., the complainant alongwith five others had come towards the deserted land situated near the land, which was in dispute, and as the accused apprehended that the complainant party has come to forcibly take over the possession of the said land, they launched a murderous assault upon them. Resultantly, Falak Sher lost his life while Muhammad Nawaz, Khan Muhammad, Umar Hayat and Mst. Merhani received injuries.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased as he died because of fire-arm injury, while the petitioner was allegedly armed with a Som. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he caused simple injuries to Khan Muhammad and Umar Hayat, P.Ws. Both these P.Ws. According to the medico-legal report received one injury each.
5. According to the polite investigation and record, the petitioner is aged about 70/75 years, who was present at the place of occurrence but did not participate in the occurrence in any manner and no recovery has been effected from him. Even otherwise the accused never premeditated the offence and it was the complainant party who had come to the land which was admittedly in possession of the accused party and was in dispute. In these circumstances, the question of vicarious liability would be determined by the trial Court after recording the evidence. The injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple in nature and the question whether he shared common intention with the other accused needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection
(2) of section 497, C r . P. C
6. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,one lac, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.